Jurassic Park III: A Sequel as Dead as the Dinosaurs

Today, the scientific model of the now-well-known Spinosaurus looks more like a duck and an alligator made poor choices than it does a Tyrannosaurus with a fin, but back in 2001, this creature was visually a considerably more formidable animal, at least according to paleontologists. And yet, certain audiences were very upset that such a creature could take down the beloved T. Rex, and they loudly made their displeasure known. I probably don't need to say anything for you to guess that I think this is a stupid reason to hate a movie, a mere flashpoint of favoritism that means absolutely nothing in the broader scheme of actual film criticism. Nevertheless, it's a meaningless quibble about a meaningless movie, so maybe it fits the theme. Jurassic Park III is a mess, about as attractive as a duck and an alligator making poor decisions, mind you.

If I had a nickel for every time Universal Studios came up with an excuse to get Dr. Grant back on a dinosaur-inhabited island, I'd have one nickel. That may not seem like a lot, but the premise of Jurassic Park III is so forceful to the point where one nickel is one nickel too many. I don't know how this complaint may hold up with time, but this threequel is founded on a premise about as natural as the genetically engineered dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. When you need to kidnap somebody to get them to where you need them to be for your movie, that's a good sign you're running out of ideas. The characters in this movie are also less interesting than in previous outings, and Amanda Kirby, the female lead of this movie, is an annoyingly low point. She's a walking liability waiver who exists only so that it's more likely someone will get eaten. The only character this movie gave me any reason to care about was Dr. Grant, and I already knew him and had every reason to like him.

Granted, the visual effects of Jurassic Park III are a significant step up from The Lost World, and I appreciate the increased attention to detail, especially regarding the color and occasional plumage on some of the Raptors. Though it may be expected, Jurassic Park III still looks far better than its predecessors, even if it feels like a zoo exhibit of dinosaurs that the other two movies didn't bother to use. It also plays in some unsatisfactory ways with some interesting ideas, among them a divorced couple trying to reconcile for the sake of finding their son, who found himself stranded on Isla Sorna through a series of extremely unfortunate events. This threequel is also significantly darker than The Lost World, continuing a trend that the first sequel set, and despite its many flaws, Jurassic Park III carves out what is very much its own identity among the lot. So, it's unpleasant to me that the third film is otherwise so shallow outside of its tone. Its narrative flow isn't flowing towards anything of value, and it seems to be more of a series of close encounters of the scaled kind without much of anything tying them together or any big picture in mind, a flimsy excuse to show dinosaurs to audiences and hopefully make a billion bucks because of it.

Jurassic Park III is the only movie in this trilogy that is not based on a book, and its lack of ideas is evident because of it. Even if it may take time to stake out a darker, foggier, more worn-down identity distinct from the other two movies, well-written and deep are not a part of that persona. This movie exists for no reason other than that Universal saw green, as well as the fact that many different types of dinosaurs used to walk the Earth, and someone wanted to give all of them participation trophies. Think of Jurassic Park III as a foggy cinematic zoo, and unfortunately, not much more. It's about as shallow as a kiddie pool, as emotionally hefty as the Hallmark Hall of Fame, and a far fall from grace for a franchise that just doesn't know when to go extinct.

Jurassic Park III - 4/10

Colossians 3:9